Sir, – Breda O'Brien ("Does Mary McAleese understand why people are voting No?", Opinion & Analysis, April 14th) writes that "if the referendum is passed, there will be children growing up in this country who will never experience a mother's love".
If the referendum is passed, there will still be children growing up in this country who will never experience a mother's love. The referendum will have absolutely no effect on that. The discussion should be on what the referendum is about – marriage equality – not the red herrings that Ms O'Brien insists on throwing into the debate. – Yours, etc,
ALISON ELLIOTT,
Whitehall,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – We would like to support Breda O'Brien in her challenge to ex-president Mary McAleese. I am a great admirer of both Breda and Mary for their courage in both standing up for their convictions. I canvassed for Mary McAleese to be elected and then she launched the book I co-edited – Adventures in Reconciliation – in the Áras. But she is wrong on this issue and is sadly taking a public stance against the Christian position on marriage. She must know full well that Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian and Methodist churches have all recently reconfirmed their church position that marriage is a divinely ordained ordinance that is exclusively between a man and a woman.
As a prominent barrister and former law professor, she must surely be aware that the European Court of Human Rights found that the European Convention on Human Rights “secures the fundamental right of a man and a woman to marry and found a family” and does not require countries to recognise same-sex marriage.
Does our former president not realise that if there is a majority Yes vote that it will make it impossible to protect a child’s right to a mother and father in the case of adoption, surrogacy and donor-assisted human reproduction?
We hope she hasn’t bought the Government’s line that this referendum has nothing to do with children and their rights. The Government is wrong on this.
In any event how can the Government be trusted on this issue? Just five short years ago Leo Varadkar, speaking on the Civil Partnership Bill in January 2010, affirmed: “Every child has the right to a mother and father and, as much as is possible, the State should vindicate that right. That is a much more important right than that of two men or women having a family. That is the principle that should underline or laws regarding children and adoption.” Mr Varadkar spoke the truth then. Why is he, ex-president McAleese and the whole political establishment pushing for the opposite today? – Yours, etc,
PADDY MONAGHAN,
Steering Group,
An Evangelical
Response to the
Same-Sex Referendum,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – One thing that has come out of this referendum that has surprised me is that I have realised I am against surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy has all kinds of complex legal and ethical issues, not to mention the chance that a child will end up with two parents who will bring it up, a sperm donor, an egg donor and a woman to carry the child. This is a situation where the needs of the adults involved, combined with the commercial profits of the agencies involved, seem to be prioritised over the needs of the child. Therefore, I can confidently say I am against surrogacy, whether the parents involved are gay, straight or any shade of LGBT.
Adoption, on the other hand, places the child and his or her welfare at the centre of proceedings. Criteria are well-established and stringent. In many cases, it is clear to me that a child will be better loved, looked after, educated and raised by adoptive parents than if they are reared in orphanages. Two loving parents, male or female, are surely better than none at all.
The debate on parenting is an important one, and while it is closely related to the marriage equality debate, it is not the same thing. Let’s not confuse matters. – Yours, etc,
KATIE HARRINGTON,
Doha,
Qatar.
Sir, – Breda O’Brien writes “If the referendum is passed, there will be children born in this country who will never experience a mother’s love”.
Could she clarify whether she is referring to the marriage referendum or the age of presidential candidates referendum as both would appear to be equally pertinent to her point. – Yours, etc,
DARRAGH MOONEY,
Ranelagh, Dublin 6.
Sir, – Breda O’Brien calls Mary McAleese’s stance misguided, and asks her what she thinks of “using a woman’s womb with the express purpose of the child never being reared by that woman? What does she think about the rights of children in those circumstances?”
Is it not already the case that straight married couples may choose to use surrogacy? How, then, is this redefining parenting? Does denying same-sex couples the right to marry change this in any way? Would this argument not also suggest that straight couples who cannot conceive, and may wish to use surrogacy, should also be denied the right to marry? Does Ms O’Brien think they should limited to civil-partnership rights also? If not, why should this limitation only apply to same-sex couples? Surely the situation of the child in both instances is exactly the same, in that he or she is being raised by a non-biological parent? How is parenting being redefined in one instance, yet not the other?
On a final note, I find her closing remark that is “possible to love gay people and oppose gay marriage” both ludicrous and patronising in equal measure. – Yours, etc,
FIONA FORMAN,
Donabate,
Co Dublin.